Tuesday, November 7, 2017

WALWORTH, WAYNE COUNTY NY - A PIT BULL "SOMEHOW" BROKE FREE FROM ITS LEASH BEING HELD BY ITS OWNER AND ATTACKED A 26-YEAR-OLD RETIRED PONY "TANGO" ON A PUBLIC TRAIL - THE LAND SHARK LATCHED ON!!!

A 26-year-old pony named Tango, who is retired from giving children lessons, was severely attacked by a dog on October 12.

Allison Vidro, the daughter of Tango’s owner, said she was riding the pony through a public trail in Walworth when she saw two unleashed dogs, a Pit Bull and Black Lab, came running toward them. The PIT BULL then allegedly attacked the horse.

“It tore the muzzle apart,” said Lea Dill, a Walworth Animal Control Officer. “Lacerations on the side, bite marks on the chest and legs. Her muzzle did have big staples in it to hold it together and everything. At that time, the horse took off because of the attack and Allison fell off her horse."

Vidro said when she got up, all she saw was "TANGO RUN THROUGH THE TREESWITH THE DOG HANGING OFF OF TANGO'S FACE". Vidro, shaken by the experience, is healing from contusions when the horse stepped on her during the fall. The pony received 70 stitches and staples to her face and leg and is now recovering.

During the incident, the pony kicked the dog in the head. Then, the dog apparently chased Tango out of the woods and down the road to the horse owner's home.

"A good Samaritan had picked up Allison after her fall,” Dill said. “The dog pursued Tango in his pasture trying to attack him more. A trooper arrived and finally commanded the dog to stop and the dog complied."

The dog's owner Bill Berdeck claims the Pit Bull was on a leash and broke free when he saw the horse. He said his four-year-old dog is “friendly and sweet and this has never happened before.”

Berdeck is now facing “dangerous dog" charges. That means he could face a fine or restitution for the vet bills.

"This is a public trail,” said Dill. “It could have been a kid, another dog. Its owner management of your dog. you teach your dog commands to come back to you. And if you don't have that control, then you keep your dog on a leash."

1 comment:

Anonymous
said...

What is it with pit bulls and ponies? Gee, I wonder if pit bulls have been genetically bred to take down larger animals? Even if a pit bull has never seen a pony before, the pit bull knows exactly what to do. The owner must have raised it that way, amIright?

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.